Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 443 posts

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#431

Post by belorn »

Illotus wrote: post #357
belorn wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy efficiency is interesting, but it is important to see the whole picture. Maybe we should be using a land efficiency rating instead? Take reindeer meat as an extreme case. Their energy efficiency from converting lichens to meat is not going to be 100%, but the alternative use for artic land are quite few. Applying the same line of thought, we can find examples also for beef. There are cattle farms here in Swede…

With reindeers it is probably highly dependent on region. For example in Lapland of Finland there are way too many reindeers than the environment can support, so they are largely kept in pens during winter and fed protein feed, hay, collected lichen, dried feafy branches etc. Plus Finland produces about 2 million kilos of reindeer meat per year, so it is really miniscule part of the diet.

Very interesting, I did not know that. When people here in Sweden talk about it it is exclusively in the context of the indigenous population in the north of Sweden, where reindeers are presented as free roaming in an area that is about 30% of the whole of Sweden. In raw numbers that is about 200 000 reindeers in the area of around 100 000 km2. I do not know if in practice this still mean that they feed them protein feed and hay.

I do know personally a farmer that operated highland cattle in a nature protected forest. They do need hay during the winter months, but that is about it. For the rest of the year it is water, salt/minerals, and some shelter in case of really bad weather like large thunderstorms. The benefit for the forest is significant and directly noticeable, and looks like a really very well managed open forest. In contrast spruce forests which is the norm in the south part of Sweden tend to be extremely overgrown, which is currently recognize as an major threat to bio diversity. Several species has gone almost extinct because of it. There are a few other nature reservation that also use highland cattle with similar setup.

Technically highland cattle could survive the winter months without hay but it would not be legal.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#432

Post by mrob »

pell wrote: post #426
mrob wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they be miserable? Embarrassed by the respectable high-class animals looking down on them for being junkies? Full of regret that they were too high to write that novel, or to travel to a foreign country? Both our plans have the same result: improved quality of life for animals, while still killing them against their wishes. Why not go with the cheaper option?

I want to lessen and limit suffering. If that is what you want as well I doubt your idea here is going to work as it seems like you have a very naive concept of drugs. People who are high, especially when they use drugs frequently, are not constantly enjoying that high or somehow consciously removed from their miserable situation. Apart from that, I think a key fact about industry farming isn't that we are not able t…

Farm animals don't have long lives. It's likely possible to continuously escalate the dose such that they'd never have to suffer. If not, wireheading can bypass problems with tolerance.

It looks like our real disagreement is "perfect is the enemy of good". If you don't want animals to be killed for food, then animal suffering is actually a good thing, because animal suffering helps convince people not to farm them. I'm working on the assumption that humans are going to continue killing animals like they've always done, and therefore it's better to reduce suffering with the most effective methods available. If animals are going to be farmed anyway, I'd rather they have access to an unlimited supply of recreational drugs (or equivalent brain modification technology). Animals don't care about the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#433

Post by chrisco255 »

sls wrote: post #286
chrisco255 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food is one of the deepest and most defining parts of a culture. Not only that but I grew up in a rural area and have killed my own meat. I don't have any qualms about it. The issues people have with it are purely a side effect of chic urban programming.

And yet we know vegetarianism goes back to at least the 7th century BCE. So perhaps your glib ascription to an urban trendiness is unfounded.

Eating meat goes back like 2 million years. Don't even pretend there was some worldwide trend for veganism in 7th century BCE.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#435

Post by lustysocietyorg »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #420
lustysocietyorg wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It shows again that marketing and personal fantasy trump science and truth in the USA and probably elsewhere too. But not eternally. Science will prevail eventually.

Science will prevail eventually, on that I will agree. Unfortunately most nutrition science today is complete garbage. The evidence doesn't back up the results they claim. Basically, at this point each person has to try various things and figure out what works best for themself.

True science is clear and known.

Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19562864/

Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27886704/

Nutrition concerns and health effects of vegetarian diets. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21139125/

Why Doctors Don't Recommend A Vegan Diet | Dr. Michael Greger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d1Ca6SsKfE

New Canada Food Guide: Some Can't Handle It https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp4zWaLE_ik

Unfortunately lies and fake science affected by a personal or political or financial agenda confuse people.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#436

Post by pell »

mrob wrote: post #432
pell wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to lessen and limit suffering. If that is what you want as well I doubt your idea here is going to work as it seems like you have a very naive concept of drugs. People who are high, especially when they use drugs frequently, are not constantly enjoying that high or somehow consciously removed from their miserable situation. Apart from that, I think a key fact about industry farming isn't that we are not able t…

Farm animals don't have long lives. It's likely possible to continuously escalate the dose such that they'd never have to suffer. If not, wireheading can bypass problems with tolerance. It looks like our real disagreement is "perfect is the enemy of good". If you don't want animals to be killed for food, then animal suffering is actually a good thing, because animal suffering helps convince people not to farm them. I…

I was not arguing for prolonging the suffering of animals as some method to make people turn away from animal products. I'm not really sure where you seem to have read that in my comment. I don't think that's a fruitful strategy at all and I've never advocated for that.

Some farm animals are killed after a few months, others like dairy cows are used for multiple years. Also, the animal psyche is not that simplistic. Yes, they might not care about the the upper levels of Maslow's model, but they're not stuck on the first one either. Therefore, throwing mind altering drugs at the problem seems like a naive and hardly effective substitute for me for the reasons I've stated earlier.

I think, there are cheap solutions that can improve the lives of these animals today, e.g. more space. But as I argued in my initial comment, I think a cultural shift is necessary (similar to smoking) and this is why I think factory farming needs to be forbidden in the long-term, meat taxes need to be introduced, meat prices need to be raised, government incentives for alternative food products need to be given, etc.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#437

Post by photoguy112 »

danans wrote: post #290
photoguy112 wrote: post #240

I feel like his comments do not apply to all of the world. In Japan for example, meat consumption is so prominent that we hardly ever consider not having meat. Sure, there is a lot of hamburger here but for the most part people stick to meat in its natural state - lots of pork, beef. Trying to convert Japan from a pork eating society would probably be a feeble attempt.

You might be surprised to learn that the consumption of most common meat was banned in Japan from 675C to 1872CE: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-japan-became-hooked-on-m...

That was an Emperial ban when emperors had power. Pulling a similar stunt now would be impossible.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#438

Post by amanaplanacanal »

lustysocietyorg wrote: post #435
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science will prevail eventually, on that I will agree. Unfortunately most nutrition science today is complete garbage. The evidence doesn't back up the results they claim. Basically, at this point each person has to try various things and figure out what works best for themself.

True science is clear and known. Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19562864/ Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27886704/ Nutrition concerns and healt…

None of those are actual studies.

Quoting from the first link: "In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.

Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out."

This is garbage science. It's all like that. Believe whatever you like, though.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#439

Post by sridca »

educationdata wrote: post #294

If meat substitutes are pure chemical, why do you stop there? I mean why social pressure only against eating meat not against eating plants? Yes, there is a difference between animals and plants, but they both have life, right? Why don't you just eat 100% chemicals?

Because modern religion is against eating meat but not plants.

Re: Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes

#440

Post by meowface »

ngngngng wrote: post #418
meowface wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A vegan would argue that the death of a single animal should be prevented if at all possible. They would probably argue that hunting is much more ethical than factory farming, but still very unethical.

I know, I've had these arguments. But it's asinine because it is quite literally impossible for any human to exist without animals dying as a result of it. There are a small percentage of vegans that are convinced that their existence results in zero animal deaths. These people are delusional. Luckily there aren't many of them. The reasonable vegans admit that it's a matter of causing as little animal death or suffer…

I'd like to think I fall in the "reasonable vegan" category. I know it's impossible for humans to prevent all possible animal deaths.

But there's a massive gap between hunting and not killing and eating animals for food at all. Of course I'd prefer if factory farming was replaced with hunting, but I'd prefer even more if synthetic meat were the norm and raising or killing animals for food just wasn't even part of the equation anymore (as PG, and others, are predicting).

As a human animal, I'd certainly rather live ~50% of my expected natural life in the wild and have it end in an instant from a weapon than be born in crammed captivity and force-fed horrible anti-biotic-laden meal for years for some higher-intelligence extraterrestrial species to consume, sure. But even though it's preferable, I still don't want to be shot and killed, even if I knew with certainty that my death was going to be short and painless.

Similar to PG, I predict killing animals for sport or for food will be considered very taboo within a century. At least in Western countries.

Post reply on HN